Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I commend the Senator for his work and commend Senator Jeffords for his work on this issue. In relation to the advertisement in the Washington Post, I wonder if the Senator from North Dakota would share with us the sponsor of that advertisement as it appears on the ad?

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in this important discussion concerning the National Park Service's recent proposal to substantially curb recreational snowmobile use within the national park system. I believe that virtually everyone can agree that snowmobile use in national parks must be carefully managed in a manner which balances legitimate recreational needs with a concern for public safety and environmental protection. Nobody argues that snowmobiles should be allowed in every area of every park and without regard for noise, speed or numbers. But at the same time, snowmobiling is a recreational option that should not be totally banned or limited in an unreasonable manner. I appreciate that the National Park Service has now ``clarified'' its earlier statements which created the impression that an across-the- board ban on snowmobiles in all parts of all parks was about to be established. The Park Service tells us that rather than a ban, it wants to curtail snowmobile use on park lands. I will follow this new approach carefully. Again, few South Dakotans have objections to reasonable rules designed to protect the environment, protect wildlife habitat and address issues of noise, safety and numbers. But regulations to properly address these matters do not require a total ban or draconian limitations on snowmobile use. I will urge the National Park Service to listen to all segments of the American public in a careful, thoughtful manner and seek to strike a sensible balance that will protect our natural heritage but also allow for reasonable and well-managed winter recreation opportunities for all our citizens. It certainly would be better for the National Park Service to administratively arrive at balanced final rules, than to necessitate legislative action on the part of Congress. If legislation is ultimately required on this matter, I will work with both my House and Senate colleagues in a bipartisan manner to secure a balanced final resolution of this issue.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the estate tax repeal bill which is currently pending before this body. Like all of my colleagues, I deplore conditions that lead to families losing their family businesses and farms. The family farm is at dire risk of becoming extinct. Some of my colleagues want to attribute this to the estate tax which they claim prevents succeeding generations from carrying on their heritage. Rightfully, that blame belongs to a failed farm policy more than a progressive tax policy. The failed Freedom to Farm policy has driven more farmers out of business than any inheritance tax. In my state of South Dakota, 102 estates had to pay federal estate tax in 1997. That figure amounts to .2 percent of all estates for that year. I support bringing more relief to the bulk of these estates that are trying to pass down family businesses and farms to their children, but the proposal before us does nothing for these families for ten years while bringing immediate help to the elite of the wealthy. The House passed plan essentially does nothing for most estates that pay the estate tax over the next decade. The benefits go only to the super-rich worth almost $4 million. Only after ten years will the family farmer and small business owner see any benefit. At that point, the entire estate tax is eliminated, exploding a $50 billion annual hole in the budget. I support some estate tax relief aimed at preserving family farms and small businesses. Under current law, a couple with a farm or business worth up to $2.6 million can give it to their heirs tax-free. Our approach would raise that to $4 million, which would mean that only 1 out of every 100 estates would face any federal estate tax. But it would not help the super-rich, as the Republican proposal would. The federal estate tax is a progressive tax. In 1998 more than half the money collected came from estates of $5 million or more. There were exactly 2,898 such estates nationwide. In other words, the Republican plan is aimed predominantly at helping the richest of the rich in our country. Fewer than three thousand estates would get the bulk of this tax break. Three thousand of the richest families in America would benefit. I do not begrudge the wealthy their position. Wealth is often accumulated through hard work, serendipity and more hard work. However, there is no compelling public policy reason to give the largest single tax break in American history to those fortunate enough to be born into the right families, and expend so much revenue doing so that nothing is left for tax relief for the middle class, paying down accumulated national debt, improving schools, Medicare or veterans health care. Especially when we have such critical needs elsewhere in our society. The majority wants to give a tax break to fewer than three thousand families that will cost over $50 billion annually. The Democrats want to help families maintain their small businesses and family farms, and we can do that for $20 billion per year. With the remainder of that money, we can help millions of Americans meet their basic needs such as helping with extraordinarily high prescription drug costs, child care or education related expenses. Why is it that the Senate can somehow find all this time to debate tax bills, which I agree are legitimate and important issues, but we can't find the time in this body to debate the number one issue facing the elderly and disabled in this country--rising prescription drug expenses? Not only should we be here today questioning why it is not good policy to only give enormous federal tax breaks to the super rich but maybe we should also be questioning the huge tax breaks that go to the multi-million dollar drug companies. As reported by Fortune 500 magazine earlier this year, the pharmaceutical companies once again represent the most profitable industry in this country with profits three times that of other industries. These are the same companies that are price gouging millions of elderly senior citizens throughout America, many of whom can't afford their daily medications. Millions of individuals who Congress thus far has said ``no we can't help you this year because we don't have the time to debate prescription drug proposals''. Instead, we are saying to the American public that we can find the time and money to pass a fiscally irresponsible estate tax bill that will probably not help any of the millions of Medicare beneficiaries who struggle between paying for their prescription drugs and groceries. I think we should do both. I believe we could pass a meaningful and fiscally responsible estate tax bill and still have resources available for addressing critically important priorities such as prescription drugs. Instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to use all of these resources solely for a bloated estate tax bill that will benefit only three thousand families. Prescription drug prices are skyrocketing at unfathomable levels and drug expenditures have grown at double-digit rates during almost every year since 1980 and more than twice the rate of all other health care expenses. Not surprising, the elderly and in particular elderly women, see the largest increases. Combine this crisis with the fact that the Senate has less than eight working weeks left this year and held only one floor debate on a prescription drug bill thus far, which was forced by members on this side of the aisle, and you find the picture for the American senior looking very bleak. If we cannot address the prescription drug issue now, then when? I am committed to helping seniors and those disabled on Medicare afford their prescription drugs. Equally, I am not going to stop fighting for lower prescription drug prices for Americans who pay by far more for prescription drugs than people in other countries. Several bills that I have sponsored this Congress aim to address the problem of escalating prescription drug prices. However, these and other prescription drug bills have been the target of an aggressive multi million dollar advertising campaign, operated by the pharmaceutical industry and their so called front group called Citizens For Better Medicare, aimed to kill any hopes of prescription drug legislation this year. In fact, I question just how many ``real citizens'' are behind that name? According to Public Citizen the drug industry is on pace to spend nearly $14 million every election and another $150 million every two years lobbying Congress to protect its incredibly high profit rates. This is the classic case of the role of big money in politics: the industry takes in billions in profits from high prices and gives out millions in campaign contributions to make sure Congress protects those profits. The time for Congress to act on providing an affordable, accessible prescription drug bill, while at the same time addressing skyrocketing drug prices, is now. Congress cannot be bullied by the big drug companies pocketbook any longer. Better yet, the American public cannot wait any longer. In the next couple of days the Senate may take up yet another tax bill and we will again be faced with an opportunity to address such critical priorities as prescription drugs. But I guess the American public will have to stay tuned as to whether or not we will even be given the opportunity to debate one of the greatest issues facing our nation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to briefly express my full support for the funding contained in the fiscal year 2001 Interior Appropriations bill for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Yesterday, I joined 72 of my Senate colleagues--Republicans and Democrats alike--in defeating an effort to cut the NEA's budget. The funding level approved in the Senate version of the Interior Appropriations bill is $7 million above that approved by the House of Representatives and represents a modest increase from last year's budget. Opponents of the NEA claim that it simply subsidizes a small number of wealthy people in the big cities. The truth is that the NEA supports public-private art projects that benefit millions of people across our country; young and old, rich and poor, rural and urban. One needs to simply look at the NEA's role in South Dakota to see how a small percentage of our tax dollars improve the lives of entire communities in our state. Last year, South Dakota received over $630,000 in grants from the NEA. That equates to nearly one dollar for every resident of our state. NEA grants are coordinated by the South Dakota Arts Council, and this successful federal-local-private relationship supports programs like the L. Frank Baum Oz Festival in Aberdeen. NEA funds were instrumental in getting the Washington Pavilion of Arts and Sciences constructed in Sioux Falls. In fact, the Black Hills Community Theatre and the Black Hills Symphony Orchestra provide year-long entertainment as a direct result of NEA funds. Residents of Brookings benefitted from NEA funding of the Brookings Chamber Music Society, the SDSU-Civic Symphony, and the Prairie Repertory Theatre. Restoration of the Historic Homestake Opera House in Lead has been supported through the NEA. In Pierre, NEA funds have allowed the Capital City Children's Chorus to entertain area residents. Vermillion's historic Shrine to Music Museum receives NEA support for its annual programs, and Watertown's Symphony Orchestra and Town Players theater group also received NEA funds this past year. I just returned from attending a performance of ``Spiritscapes'', a South Dakota cantata, at the Sioux Falls Washington Pavilion which was financed in part by the NEA. However, it isn't just the larger cities in South Dakota that benefit from NEA funding. Last year, the South Dakota Arts Council funded over 220 weeks of Artists-In-Schools residencies conducted by professional artists at schools and other educational institutions throughout our state. Some of the communities that benefitted from the annual Artists- In-Schools program include: Arlington, Batesland, Belle Fourche, Beresford, Box Elder, Brandon, Buffalo, Canton, Castlewood, Cavour, Centerville, Chester, Clark, Doland, Emery, Fairfax, Faulkton, Garretson, Gettysburg, Harrold, Hartford, Hitchcock, Huron, Kadoka, Kimball, Leola, Madison, Martin, Mission, Mobridge, North Sioux City, Piedmont, Pollock, Porcupine, Revillo, Sisseton, Tyndall, Valley Springs, Wakonda, Waubay, Webster, White River, Wilmot, Woonsocket, and Worthing. I am pleased to note that NEA funds have been essential in helping to cultivate art on South Dakota's Native American Reservations. Federal funds have supported arts education at the Tiospa Zina Tribal School, the St. Joseph Indian School, the HVJ Lakota Cultural Center, Lower Brule Elementary School, and throughout the Wounded Knee School District. The Northern Plains Tribal Arts festival has also grown into the region's premiere Native American art show and market, in large part to NEA funding. The total NEA budget amounts to one one-thousandth of one percent of the federal budget. I believe that this extremely modest investment in the NEA is overwhelmingly well spent, thanks to the leadership and creativity of those within the South Dakota arts community. While I am pleased that the Senate was able to once again fight off an attack on the NEA, I hope that we will soon be debating expansion of this federal-local-private partnership with a proven record of success in South Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly commend Ardyce Habeger Samp of Flandreau, South Dakota on being named for the prestigious 2000 Dakota Conference Award for Distinguished Contribution to the Preservation of Cultural Heritage of South Dakota and the Northern Plains. Ms. Samp is a freelance writer, with more than 125 published short stories and two books, entitled ``When Coffee Was a Nickel'' and ``Penny Candy Days.'' She is an active member of her community, serving on various boards, clubs and church organizations. This past May, Governor Bill Janklow issued an honorary executive proclamation, declaring May 26, 2000 ``Ardyce Habeger Samp Day.'' Also recently, Ms. Samp received the prestigious 2000 Dakota Conference Award for Distinguished Contribution to the Preservation of Cultural Heritage of South Dakota and the Northern Plains. Mr. President, Ardyce Samp's scholarship and literary talents have enhanced the lives of South Dakotans. Her role in community leadership serves as a model for other South Dakotans to emulate. We are grateful for her continued work to tell the story of the Northern Plains. I am pleased to be able to share her story with my colleagues and to be able to publicly commend her work.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I was absent from the Senate last Thursday afternoon to attend the high school graduation of my daughter. Kelsey. I missed two different votes, and I would like to state for the Record, how I would have voted in each instance. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote number 141, the third reading of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2001. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote number 142, the motion to instruct the Sergeant at Arms during the consideration of HR 4577, the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. I also was unavoidably detained due to a family commitment on the evening of June 27, and I missed one vote during that time. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote number 149, Senate amendment number 3610, a McCain amendment as amended to HR 4577, the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Minnesota, extending strong support for his amendment. Very simply, this amendment would require that when companies receive federally funded drug research or a federally owned drug, the benefits of that research or drug be made available to the public on reasonable terms through what is called a ``reasonable pricing clause.'' This issue first surfaced during the Bush administration, in fact, when the NIH insisted that cooperative research agreements contain a reasonable pricing clause that would protect consumers from exorbitant prices of products developed from federally funded research. Two weeks ago, during floor debate in the other body on the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, a very similar amendment to this one was offered and overwhelmingly accepted by nearly three-quarters of the House of Representatives in a bipartisan vote. The circumstances we face today are extraordinary. As an example, between 1955 and 1992, 92 percent of drugs approved by the FDA to treat cancer were researched and developed by the taxpayers through the NIH. Today many of the most widely used drugs in this country dealing with a variety of critical illnesses such as AIDS, breast cancer, and depression were developed through the use of taxpayer-funded NIH research. The Federal Government funds about 36 percent of all medical research. The unfortunate scenario for American taxpayers is that oftentimes this drug research, done at their expense, is frequently used then by the pharmaceutical industry with no assurance that American consumers will not be charged outrageously high prescription drug prices. Take the drug Taxol, for instance. The NIH spent 15 years and $32 million of our money, taxpayer money, to develop Taxol, which is a popular cancer drug used for breast, lung, and ovarian cancers. Following the development of Taxol, the drug manufacturer was awarded exclusive marketing rights on the drug, and Taxol is now priced at roughly 20 times what Taxol costs the manufacturer to produce. So a cancer patient on Taxol will pay $10,000 a year while it only costs the drug company $500. As reported by Fortune 500 magazine earlier this year, the pharmaceutical companies once again represent the most profitable sector of the American economy. On top of that, we are seeing drug prices soaring at unimaginable rates year after year. In the United States, drug spending is growing at more than twice the rate of all other health care expenditures. Furthermore, Americans are paying far more for prescription drugs than do the people in any other Western industrialized Nation--many of these drugs manufactured in the United States and the research having been conducted through American taxpayer dollars. As an example, tamoxifen, a widely prescribed drug for breast cancer, recently received federally funded research and numerous NIH-sponsored clinical trials. Yet today the pharmaceutical industry charges women in this Nation 10 times more than they charge women in Canada for a drug widely developed with U.S. taxpayer support. The evidence has shown that the pharmaceutical companies are charging enormously high rates for drugs developed with the help of taxpayer money. Americans then are forced to pay twice for lifesaving drugs: first as taxpayers to develop the drug, and then as a consumer to bolster pharmaceutical profits. Once again, who is hurt most by this? As one would expect, these costs fall hardest on those most vulnerable and least able to bear the burden, such as cancer patients, AIDS patients, and the elderly. We have to put an end to the giveaway of billions of taxpayer dollars to finance drug research that goes on without any assurance whatsoever that the American taxpayers will not see a reasonable return on their investment in terms of affordable prescription drug prices. I appreciate that this amendment may not be the silver bullet that solves all of the problems of assuring the American public they are receiving the return on their investment that they deserve. But it does serve as an important message that this Congress is here to protect the millions of American consumers who have invested their money in research to develop drugs that they now cannot afford to buy. Furthermore, it shows we are here to fight for affordable prescription drugs for every American in this Nation. This is one part of an overall strategy that this Congress needs to enact to assure that we have equity, to assure that we have tax fairness, and to assure that we maximize the number of people in America who can afford their prescriptions. I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of this critically important amendment tomorrow when the vote is taken on this amendment. I commend and applaud my colleague from Minnesota for his work in crafting this amendment and bringing it before the body.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sharon Boysen of my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to amend the 1996 farm bill. This legislation is really the culmination of at least two years of work on the part of two agricultural producers from my home State of South Dakota. These two individuals, Craig Blindert of Salem and Phil Cyre of Watertown, have devoted an enormous amount of time and energy refining the proposal I am introducing today and I want to express my thanks and gratitude. While some policy makers purport to have all the answers to agricultural policy and our current economic disaster in farm country, I am proud that two South Dakota farmers approached me with their plan. Mr. Blindert and Mr. Cyre exhibit a quality inherent to a farmer that most policy makers will never exhibit, something I call ``tractor seat common sense.'' Former President Eisenhower once said, farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles away from a farm. Instead of pretending I have all of the answers, I think it just makes good practical sense to listen to farmers who know their business better than anyone in the world, and that is what I have tried to do with this proposal. Unfortunately, all of that expertise our farmers demonstrate about the production of crops and livestock, marketing, and risk management means little when our farm policy and agribusinesses minimizes them into mere price takers. The legislation I am introducing today attempts to allow farmers to become price setters in response to the free market, and it attempts to ensure responsibility from agribusiness to finally offer a decent price for commodities. The current economic setting and commodity price forecast for farmers and ranchers remains disastrous. Crop prices have absolutely collapsed with corn prices at a 12 year low, soybeans prices at a 27 year low, and wheat prices that have not been so low since 1977. Meatpacker concentration and unfair livestock dumping are still crippling livestock producers. Prices paid for livestock have remained low in the pork and lamb sectors while they have recovered, at a very limited and still unprofitable rate, for cattle producers. As a result, net farm income has plummeted to around $40 billion this past year, plunging $9 billion from last year, without government assistance. Agricultural exports are down over $11 billion from 1996, and constricted global demand for our agricultural products restricts exports from boosting prices. It is clear that once again this disastrous marketplace clouds the landscape of rural America as a woefully inadequate farm bill continues to rip the safety net from beneath farmers and ranchers. If not for government market loss assistance the last three years--a record level of $23 billion in 1999--many hard-working farmers and ranchers might be out of business. The course of the last few years under the current farm bill has given all of us the opportunity to measure the theories of Freedom to Farm against the practical reality of experience. The measurable results of that practical experience should convince Congress we cannot delay to reform the current farm bill. Some tend to ignore this reality, choosing instead to overlook the flawed farm policy, in hopes that over time our nation's family farmers and ranchers will find themselves enjoying the prosperity of our booming economy. However, most farmers merely read about this prosperity as they face escalating production expenses, eroding equity, and collapsing crop prices. Delay in reforming farm policy is dangerous to the entire fabric of rural America. The other day a farmer remarked to me, ``the best time for Congress to write a better farm bill would have been in 1996, but, the next best time is today.'' I couldn't agree more. Congress cannot continue to overlook the link between the current financial stress our family producers face and the 1996 farm bill provisions which eliminated the financial safety net for farmers. Consequently, there should be no higher priority for this Congress to accomplish in farm policy than to restore a fair price from a truly free marketplace. The legislation I am introducing today is not a radical departure from the current farm bill. We try to reinforce the advantages of Freedom to Farm while improving upon other areas of our farm policy. Coined ``Flexible Fallow'' by the farmers who developed it, my proposal adds a voluntary, annual, conservation-use feature to the loan rate provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill. Should a farmer desire to operate under current farm bill conditions, my legislation ensures that opportunity. However, should a farmer need greater leverage over crop production and marketing, Flex Fallow guarantees that planting and marketing flexibility. Neil Harl of Iowa State University, arguably the most respected agricultural economist in the country, has enthusiastically endorsed my Flex Fallow proposal. In a letter to me he describes Flex Fallow as ``the missing link to the 1996 farm bill.'' He believes this proposal will function in a market oriented fashion and ensure that ``farmers continue to make production decisions based upon their own operations in a manner that makes economic sense.'' Mr. President, farmers electing to devote a portion of their total crop acreage to conservation-use under my bill receive a higher loan rate on their remaining crop production. On an annual and crop-by-crop basis, farmers can choose to conserve up to thirty percent of their total crop acreage. An adjustable loan rate schedule is a key feature of this proposal. With the exception of wheat and soybeans, the proposed base loan rates for 0 percent participation in Flex Fallow (otherwise known as full production) are set at 2000 levels. Participation in Flex Fallow is directly proportional to increased loan rates. For corn, wheat, and soybeans, loan rates increase by one percent for each one percent increase in conservation-use. In 1999, the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) completed an analysis of the Flex Fallow proposal. I believe the results were very promising. In years and regions (areas of the country with a wide basis) of low commodity prices, Flex Fallow encourages farmers to voluntarily set-aside land in turn for a higher loan rate. Yet in years of better commodity prices, farmers are inclined to produce for the market, planting most or all of their land to crop production. The reduced plantings in years of poor crop prices, like the last three years, would lead to higher crop prices. More specifically, reduced plantings in the first two years of the program would translate into the following higher crop prices. Corn prices rise 27 cents per bushel over current levels, soybean prices climb 44 cents per bushel, wheat prices recover 29 cents per bushel, and cotton prices rise 9 cents per pound. The FAPRI analysis predicts a commodity price recovery in the long-term, and the analysis found participation in Flex Fallow to decline after 2002. While I work on this amendment to the current farm bill, I am absolutely open to other ideas and alternatives that revise our farm policy. Unlike the authors of the 1996 farm bill, I do not cling to a pride in authorship in a farm program. So, I want the opportunity to support as many viable alternatives as possible. In summary, here are a few highlights of the Flex Fallow farm bill amendment I am introducing today. Flex Fallow is flexible and adjustable enough to meet the needs of individual farm operations. Flex Fallow is voluntary. Flex Fallow is market-oriented because it permits farmers the freedom to plant for marketplace conditions. Flex Fallow emphasizes conservation practices. Flex Fallow updates yield data and eliminates current base acres. Flex Fallow targets disaster assistance to producers who suffer from weather-related crop loss and price collapse. Finally, Flex Fallow will result in a modest cost to taxpayers. The FAPRI analysis finds net Commodity Credit Corporation expenditures under Flex Fallow to compare with that of the 1996 farm bill without billion-dollar emergency spending additions. In the coming months I anticipate a full airing of my Flex Fallow amendment to the farm bill, alongside other pieces of farm bill reform legislation that others in Congress may introduce. I expect to refine this proposal after discussing it further with farmers and farm organizations across South Dakota and the entire country. As a result, it is likely I will introduce another piece of legislation similar to Flex Fallow in the next session of Congress, wherein two other significant issues will be addressed. First, of critical importance to me is the need to design a farm bill in the future that targets the benefits to family-sized farmers and ranchers. Too often, Congress and the Administration devise tactics to ignore and plow under the existing farm program payment limitations. If we have a limited amount of taxpayer funds in which to devote to price support for farmers, it simply makes sense to target those benefits to small and mid-sized family producers. While the amendment I introduce today does not alter current payments limits under the farm bill, I am a strong supporter of targeting. As such, I will work to place sensible, responsible, payment limitations that provide benefits to all but ensure targeted benefits to the small and mid-sized family farmers and ranchers who need and deserve greater attention from Congress. Second, I believe Congress will be unable to develop a future farm bill without the support of those in the conservation and wildlife community. I am a strong supporter of conservation programs that protect sensitive soil and water resources, promote wildlife habitat, and provide farmers and landowners with benefits and incentives to conserve land. Flex Fallow can work very well with both short-term and longer-term conservation practices. It is my goal to bring conservation groups together with farm interests in order to develop a well-balanced approach to future farm policy that protects our resources while promoting family-farm agriculture. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Dr. Harl be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, domestic violence is often the crime that victims don't want to admit and communities don't want to discuss. However, almost 10,000 domestic violence victims in South Dakota last year got help from the Department of Social Services. This represents a low estimate of the number of South Dakotans who are victims of domestic violence as many victims fail to seek help. Since enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, the number of forcible rapes of women declined, and the number of sexual assaults nationwide has gone down as well. Despite the success of the Violence Against Women Act, domestic abuse and violence against women continues to plague our communities. Consider the fact that a woman is raped every five minutes in this country, and that nearly one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. In fact, more women are injured by domestic violence each year than by automobile accidents and cancer deaths combined. These facts illustrate that there is a need in Congress to help states and communities address this problem that impacts all of our communities. I recently joined Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), Senator Orrin Hatch (R- UT), Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD), and others in sponsoring bipartisan legislation, S. 2787, to reauthorize the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. Authorization for the important programs contained in this law has already expired, and Congress must act now to ensure that successful programs dealing with domestic violence are funded in the future. As a state lawmaker in 1983, I wrote one of the first domestic violence laws in South Dakota which dedicated a portion of marriage license fees to help build shelters for battered women. I was also a cosponsor of the original Violence Against Women Act in 1990 in the House of Representatives. Even at that time, many people denied that domestic violence existed in our state. Finally, in 1995, the President signed legislation to strengthen federal criminal law relating to violence against women and fund programs to help women who have been assaulted. Since the Violence Against Women Act became law, South Dakota organizations have received over $6.7 million in federal funding for domestic abuse programs. In addition, the Violence Against Women Act doubled prison time for repeat sex offenders; established mandatory restitution to victims of violence against women; codified much of our existing laws on rape; and strengthened interstate enforcement of violent crimes against women. The law also created a national toll-free hotline to provide women with crisis intervention help, information about violence against women, and free referrals to local services. Last year, the hotline took its 300,000th call. The number for women to call for help is: 1- 800-799-SAFE. In addition to reauthorizing the provisions of the original Violence Against Women Act, the legislation that I am sponsoring in the Senate would improve our overall efforts to reduce violence against women by strengthening law enforcement's role in reducing violence against women. The legislation also expands legal services and assistance to victims of violence, while also addressing the effects of domestic violence on children. Finally, programs are funded to strengthen education and training to combat violence against women. I have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to quickly pass S. 2787, and I am hopeful that the Senate will approve this important piece of legislation this year so that we can continue fighting domestic abuse and violence against women in our state and communities.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I supported the amendment to create a Medicare prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program offered by my colleague, Senator Robb from Virginia, to the Labor, Health and Human Resources and Education Appropriations bill. Despite the Senate defeating this amendment largely along a party line vote of 44 to 53, I vow to continue the fight with my colleagues to push the Senate for further debate on prescription drug proposals and pass a meaningful prescription drug bill this year. The millions of needy seniors and those with disabilities receiving Medicare deserve nothing less. Some of my colleagues have argued that this was not the time, nor the proper legislative process by which we should pass a Medicare prescription drug proposal. Mr response to that accusation, is when is the proper time then? When are we in Congress going to listen to the constituents like those that I have spoken to from Wessington Springs and Custer, South Dakota? This is not, nor should be a partisan issue. This is not, nor should be an issue that gives greater deliberation to the pleas of party politics than pleas of needy seniors. Constituents in my home state of South Dakota, have been telling me for years that they are struggling to make ends meet and need help affording their prescription drugs. I introduced my first bill on this issue well over a year ago in the Senate, and since then debate surrounding how to provide Medicare beneficiaries with access to affordable prescription drugs has produced several proposals from both Democrats and Republicans. Yet, this is the first time that the Senate has taken the time during the 106th Congress to have a floor vote on this issue. I am cautiously optimistic that we will continue to see debate on this critically important matter, and may indeed find compromise between the two parties to help our senior citizens better afford their expensive prescription drug medications. I am in constant contact with South Dakotans who have expressed their difficulty in choosing between paying for medication, or buying food and paying utilities. I want to assure them that the Senate will not wait any longer and will pass legislation this session to provide immediate relief to the thousands of senior citizens in South Dakota and across the nation who are having difficulty affording life-saving medication. Even if we can't reach an agreement on a Medicare prescription drug plan this year, there are several steps we can take now that would provide some relief to seniors who face rising prescription drug costs. All three of the bills that I have sponsored, including the Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act, the International Prescription Drug Parity Act, and the Generic Pharmaceutical Access and Choice For Consumers Act, if enacted this year, would provide immediate relief to millions of Americans across the country. Equally so, these bills would require no additional taxpayer dollars nor new government program.'' While they may not be the magic bullet that meets all of the long term needs of providing Medicare prescription drug coverage, they would provide a mechanism for immediate relief from rising drug costs. Working together, reaching across the aisle, we can use this time of unparalleled prosperity to do the right thing by our seniors. We should do it this year for their sake, and for the sake of the future of Medicare.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr President, I rise on the floor of the Senate today to introduce bipartisan legislation to extend a popular program which provides mediation services between agricultural producers and the various credit and United States Department of Agriculture agencies who family farmers and ranchers work with to maintain their operations. During the 1980's farm crisis, Congress authorized federal participation in a state farm mediation program. Originally authorized in the Agriculture Credit Act of 1987, mediation programs help agricultural producers and their creditors to resolve credit disputes (and other types of disputes) in a confidential and non-adversarial setting which is outside the traditional process of litigation, appeals, bankruptcy, and foreclosure. The mediators are neutral facilitators and they do not make decisions for the disputing parties. Federal legislation has encouraged state involvement by providing matching grant funds to the states that participate in the mediation program. Currently, 24 states participate, including Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Beyond the scope of agricultural credit-related mediation, the program aims to resolve disputes such as wetland determinations, grazing issues, and USDA program compliance, and other issues the Secretary of Agriculture deems appropriate. Each year, Congress seeks to provide funding for the mediation program through the Agriculture Appropriations process. This year $3 million has been appropriated for this program in both the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriation bills. This legislation will not change the fact that Congress must go through the Appropriations process each year to secure funding for this program. The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today reauthorizes the mediation program by eliminating the sunset clause (set to expire in FY 2000), clarifies that funds appropriated by Congress to the mediation program must be used for farm credit cases (including USDA direct and guaranteed loans and loans from commercial entities) and may be used for other USDA program disputes, and clarifies that mediation services can include counseling services to prepare parties to a dispute prior to mediation. In a time when family farmers and ranchers continue to deal with low prices and suffer under more and more vertical integration, I believe we must begin to reflect on what we can do to maintain the independent family farms and ranches that our country depends on for our food supply. We live in a day and age where nearly every farm and ranch operation must secure credit in order to pay production expenditures necessary to stay in business. This mediation program is supported by both sides of the aisle and allows farmers and ranchers to settle their credit and farm program disputes in a fair way without digging themselves into legal debt. I have worked with the lone Congressman from my home state of South Dakota in drafting this legislation and the same bill will be introduced in the House of Representatives today as well. I urge my colleagues of the Senate to join me in supporting this bi- partisan legislation with the goal of moving it through the legislative process quickly in order to continue to provide these services to our American farmers and ranchers.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today to support introduction of the Health Care Access and Rural Equality Act of 2000, known as H-CARE. I especially want to commend Senators Conrad and Grassley, and Representative Foley for the tremendous amount of effort they put forth in drafting this key legislation. As well, I commend a number of my other colleagues who have contributed immensely to the crafting of this bill, including Senators Daschle, Harkin, Roberts, Thomas, Kerrey, Rockefeller, and Representatives Pomeroy, Tanner, Nussle, and McIntyre. The bipartisan and bicameral support for this legislation signifies the critical and often times desperate condition, that our rural hospitals are in due in large part to the unforeseen impact of the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 and disparities in Medicare reimbursements for rural facilities. Impact estimates and preliminary data suggest that the BBA cuts have fallen squarely on the shoulders of our rural hospitals who do not have the operating margins to shoulder consecutive years of budgetary deficits. Unfortunately, rural hospitals do not have the luxury of trimming spending in one area to meet the needs in another. Recent cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate important programs such as home health care or therapy services in order to operate within these tight budget restraints. Rural hospitals are charged with the responsibility to provide high- quality, compassionate care to individuals in times of need, especially our senior and disabled Medicare populations. However, it also seems evident to me that we have asked hospitals to do a day's work for an hour's pay. The H-CARE Act works to restore some of the funding disparities that exist for rural hospitals and provides resources to ensure their survival. Hospitals in my home state of South Dakota face a potential loss in Medicare revenues of nearly $171 million over five years if something is not done to help them. Provisions in H-CARE including inflation updates for rural hospitals, protection for Medicare Dependent Hospitals, support for the Critical Access Hospitals Programs, creation of a capital infrastructure loan program, assistance to update technology, and increased reimbursement for Sole Community Hospitals will allow rural facilities the necessary resources to keep their doors open. We are talking about rural facilities such as the Medical Center in Huron, SD, which was forced to eliminate 24 full time positions to compensate for Medicare cuts in their FY 2001 budget, or the hospital in Burke, SD, which had to cut $124,000 from their hospital this year to ensure their survival. These are just a few examples of the many stories that I've heard from hospitals administrators throughout my home state of South Dakota. Once again, I am please to join my colleagues today as an original cosponsor of the H-CARE Act and look forward to working with the full Senate to ensure quick and immediate action on this critically important legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today to support introduction of the Health Care Access and Rural Equality Act of 2000, known as H-CARE. I especially want to commend Senators Conrad and Grassley, and Representative Foley for the tremendous amount of effort they put forth in drafting this key legislation. As well, I commend a number of my other colleagues who have contributed immensely to the crafting of this bill, including Senators Daschle, Harkin, Roberts, Thomas, Kerrey, Rockefeller, and Representatives Pomeroy, Tanner, Nussle, and McIntyre. The bipartisan and bicameral support for this legislation signifies the critical and often times desperate condition, that our rural hospitals are in due in large part to the unforeseen impact of the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 and disparities in Medicare reimbursements for rural facilities. Impact estimates and preliminary data suggest that the BBA cuts have fallen squarely on the shoulders of our rural hospitals who do not have the operating margins to shoulder consecutive years of budgetary deficits. Unfortunately, rural hospitals do not have the luxury of trimming spending in one area to meet the needs in another. Recent cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate important programs such as home health care or therapy services in order to operate within these tight budget restraints. Rural hospitals are charged with the responsibility to provide high- quality, compassionate care to individuals in times of need, especially our senior and disabled Medicare populations. However, it also seems evident to me that we have asked hospitals to do a day's work for an hour's pay. The H-CARE Act works to restore some of the funding disparities that exist for rural hospitals and provides resources to ensure their survival. Hospitals in my home state of South Dakota face a potential loss in Medicare revenues of nearly $171 million over five years if something is not done to help them. Provisions in H-CARE including inflation updates for rural hospitals, protection for Medicare Dependent Hospitals, support for the Critical Access Hospitals Programs, creation of a capital infrastructure loan program, assistance to update technology, and increased reimbursement for Sole Community Hospitals will allow rural facilities the necessary resources to keep their doors open. We are talking about rural facilities such as the Medical Center in Huron, SD, which was forced to eliminate 24 full time positions to compensate for Medicare cuts in their FY 2001 budget, or the hospital in Burke, SD, which had to cut $124,000 from their hospital this year to ensure their survival. These are just a few examples of the many stories that I've heard from hospitals administrators throughout my home state of South Dakota. Once again, I am please to join my colleagues today as an original cosponsor of the H-CARE Act and look forward to working with the full Senate to ensure quick and immediate action on this critically important legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr President, I rise on the floor of the Senate today to introduce bipartisan legislation to extend a popular program which provides mediation services between agricultural producers and the various credit and United States Department of Agriculture agencies who family farmers and ranchers work with to maintain their operations. During the 1980's farm crisis, Congress authorized federal participation in a state farm mediation program. Originally authorized in the Agriculture Credit Act of 1987, mediation programs help agricultural producers and their creditors to resolve credit disputes (and other types of disputes) in a confidential and non-adversarial setting which is outside the traditional process of litigation, appeals, bankruptcy, and foreclosure. The mediators are neutral facilitators and they do not make decisions for the disputing parties. Federal legislation has encouraged state involvement by providing matching grant funds to the states that participate in the mediation program. Currently, 24 states participate, including Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Beyond the scope of agricultural credit-related mediation, the program aims to resolve disputes such as wetland determinations, grazing issues, and USDA program compliance, and other issues the Secretary of Agriculture deems appropriate. Each year, Congress seeks to provide funding for the mediation program through the Agriculture Appropriations process. This year $3 million has been appropriated for this program in both the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriation bills. This legislation will not change the fact that Congress must go through the Appropriations process each year to secure funding for this program. The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today reauthorizes the mediation program by eliminating the sunset clause (set to expire in FY 2000), clarifies that funds appropriated by Congress to the mediation program must be used for farm credit cases (including USDA direct and guaranteed loans and loans from commercial entities) and may be used for other USDA program disputes, and clarifies that mediation services can include counseling services to prepare parties to a dispute prior to mediation. In a time when family farmers and ranchers continue to deal with low prices and suffer under more and more vertical integration, I believe we must begin to reflect on what we can do to maintain the independent family farms and ranches that our country depends on for our food supply. We live in a day and age where nearly every farm and ranch operation must secure credit in order to pay production expenditures necessary to stay in business. This mediation program is supported by both sides of the aisle and allows farmers and ranchers to settle their credit and farm program disputes in a fair way without digging themselves into legal debt. I have worked with the lone Congressman from my home state of South Dakota in drafting this legislation and the same bill will be introduced in the House of Representatives today as well. I urge my colleagues of the Senate to join me in supporting this bi- partisan legislation with the goal of moving it through the legislative process quickly in order to continue to provide these services to our American farmers and ranchers.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I filed this past week to H.R. 3709, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act. This amendment has a twofold purpose. First, it highlights the need to act on S. 2097, the Launching Our Communities' Access to Local Television Act of 2000. This critical legislation passed the Senate by a unanimous, 97-0, vote on March 30 of this year. The House version of this bill, H.R. 3615, also passed by an overwhelming 375-37 margin. Yet here we are 2\1/2\ months later with no effort to move this bipartisan legislation forward toward enactment. In the meantime, the other body has considered an extension of the Internet tax moratorium for an additional 5 years. I supported the original Internet Nondiscrimination Act which created a 3-year moratorium on new taxes on the Internet while we considered the various ramifications of e-commerce taxation issues. That original moratorium does not expire until next October. Yet here we are 16 months in advance of that expiration preparing to consider an additional 5-year expansion. Not only that, but with this new legislation, we renege, frankly, on a promise made under the 1998 act which grandfathered existing State taxes on Internet services. That agreement was essential to securing the overwhelming support which S. 442 ultimately received. I believe we should not be placing taxes on access to the Internet, but that is not the issue. The issue is the implementation of already existing sales tax responsibilities. Sales tax is a critical component of State and local revenues, especially in States such as South Dakota that do not have an income tax. More than half of our State budget derives from the sales tax. That is the money that goes to education, crimefighting, and other essential services. This online-commerce loophole in sales tax collection results in an unfair situation for South Dakota merchants, and threatens the treasuries of State and local governments with the loss of millions of dollars in revenue. There is a great need for State tax laws to be applied to all sales regardless of whether the sales are made at a local store, over the Internet, or by any other means. H.R. 3709 does not foreclose the possibility of collecting sales tax on products purchased over the Internet. In fact, it is silent on this issue. That silence, however, is almost as dangerous to State and local government as an explicit rejection of equal treatment for brick and mortar stores. By filing this amendment to H.R. 3709, I want it made clear that I will oppose this legislation moving forward until it establishes a comprehensive review of Internet-related tax policy. I remain absolutely opposed to any new tax on the Internet. Internet usage ought to be encouaged and kept affordable. Public policy ought to promote tax-free Internet access, but it makes no sense that some sales are subject to sales tax while others are not. We need a level playing field for everyone. It is up to each individual State and municipality to decide for itself whether it wants to have a sales tax--but once that decision is made, it ought to apply uniformly to sales without regard to the particular technology utilized in making the sale. This correction must be considered in the context of any effort to extend the ongoing Internet tax moratorium. Although there are many pieces of critical legislation which would serve to highlight the tax fairness issues raised by H.R. 3709, I want to focus on S. 2097, the local-into-local television act. Under legislation we passed this past year, satellite companies are for the first time free to broadcast local network programming into local markets. That ability has already benefited thousands of viewers and promoted competition in the broadcast delivery industry. What S. 2097 seeks to accomplish is to make that benefit a reality for Americans who live outside the largest 40 television markets. Like many of my colleagues, I represent a State, South Dakota, with rural viewers that should not be left out of the information age. South Dakota is one of the 16 States that do not have a single city among the top 70 markets. Sixteen States have no television markets within the top 70. Without this loan guarantee, markets such as Sioux Falls and Rapid City will never get local-into-local service, and rural South Dakotans will not have an opportunity to receive their local networks over the satellite signals. This proposal is more than just getting sports or entertainment programming over your local channels. It is a critical way to receive important local news, storm information, road reports, school closing information, and civic affairs information. Rural Americans need the same opportunity to access their local networks as do our urban friends. This legislation will provide that opportunity. We have worked very hard in the Banking Committee and on the floor to achieve strong bipartisan legislation. Senators Sarbanes, Baucus, Gramm, Burns, and others worked diligently to find the accommodations to satisfy everyone's concerns. We have a final product which will ultimately result in local-into-local broadcasting for rural America, and it does so in a fiscally responsible manner that limits the taxpayer exposure. The overwhelming vote in both the House and Senate demonstrates the soundness of this legislation. It is absolutely critical for the millions of Americans who live outside our major urban areas. It is the promised missing component of last year's Satellite Home Viewer Improvements Act. This issue has aroused the greatest level of constituent concern in many States in quite some time. S. 2097 provides a fiscally responsible and prudent response to the concerns raised by thousands of our constituents, protecting the taxpayer interests while at the same time helping to provide this service. I intend to offer this legislation to every vehicle possible this year until we have the opportunity to finish what we started and provide this essential service to all Americans. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JOHNSON. Saying our military retirees would beat a path to the Federal system offering TRICARE as an alternative--frankly, that is an unpopular option. This Johnson amendment is what the military retirees want and deserve.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, given Senator Warner's observation, I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I join Senator McCain and the other cosponsors in support of this legislation. We have a fundamental question before us, and that is whether the military retirees of this Nation deserve to have the same kind of health care system that Members of this body have, or other Federal employees, through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. That is the amendment that the military retiree organizations are asking to have and we can, once and for all, be done with the question about whether we are going to live up to our commitment to our military personnel in terms of the medical care that they were promised and which they deserve. I think there is an across-the-board agreement in this body that if we are truly going to live up to this obligation, this legislation is what we have to pass. It would involve a waiver, and the fundamental question we have, then, is whether we have 60 votes in this body to get into the surplus dollars, or whether those surplus dollars will remain available for tax cuts and other purposes. If you believe that military health care is a first priority, ought to come first, rather than the crumbs that come after we have made other budget decisions, you will support the Johnson-McCain amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON. I will be open to conveying back my time.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, we have no additional speakers on my side. I agree we ought to expedite this debate at this point, unless the Senator has other speakers to whom I would choose to respond.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I make a clarification relative to my amendment. There may have been some confusion earlier. I wish to make it very clear that under my amendment those who entered the armed services prior to June 7, 1956, would be eligible for Federal employee health benefit plan coverage with the Government paying 100 percent of the premiums. Those who entered the armed services after June 7 of 1956 can choose Federal employee health benefit plans with premiums or TRICARE. I want to make sure that point is very clear. There has been reference to points of order, and the Senator from Virginia is very correct that a point of order will be raised on my amendment. My amendment does cost more. It does more and it costs more. It is perpetuating. It is not a 2-year commitment. A point of order, while not taken up lightly, is simply an opportunity to determine whether 60 votes in this body believe the issue at hand is of sufficient importance that it ought to have that first level of concern, that priority. The question is, Are we going to pass or waive a point of order with 60 votes and invade surplus dollars that otherwise are available for tax cuts or are we going to put our money where our mouth is? Do we have the 60 votes to say we will use those dollars, at least that part of it that is required, that $90 billion out of the $800 billion or so that is available, for this purpose? One of the things that makes this debate interesting, and the parliamentary process interesting, I don't know if we have the 60 votes to waive the order or not. After all these years of Veterans Day and Memorial Day rhetoric about how important our veterans are, this at last will be an opportunity for every Member of this body to stand up and be counted. Is that rhetorical support or are you willing to put these priorities ahead of other budget priorities, including tax relief? Are you willing to waive the Budget Act and make this happen or not? If you are not, I respect your views. Members can go home and explain that. That is certainly your prerogative. It is long overdue. We have an opportunity for some accountability for the American public to understand who is willing to truly make this a budget priority and who is not. If you are not, then you have those justifications that you can make. That is what the nature of this is. This is not because it is more costly, that this is an impossible program. It will require 60 votes, assuming that the point of order is raised, rather than the 50 votes of the Senator from Virginia. It will allow the Senate to make a determination in this body whether these priorities are ahead of other priorities that people have, a thousand other things for which they want to use the budget surpluses. No doubt almost all of them are worthy causes. But is this only one of many, many causes, one that we are going to cut short after only 2 years, and then provide less than the full level of commitment to the promises made to our veterans or is this, in fact, a first priority and we are complying with our promises, albeit belatedly, but a full commitment permanently, and in order to do that invade into surpluses dollars that no doubt other people on both sides of the aisle have other purposes for which they can use the dollars? That is the question with which ultimately we have to contend. My colleague from New York has come to the floor and has a 1 minute request on an unrelated issue. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from New York be permitted 1 minute.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not sure I understand the Senator's point on this. In fact, it would seem to me that more military retirees will have their own personal health care services taken care of, and there would be less reliance on the existing military health care structure.